Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 12 May 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Kammergericht Berlin (Germany)) - Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts v JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, Frankfurt Branch
(Jurisdiction in civil matters - Articles 22(2) and 27 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 - Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State in which a company has its seat to adjudicate upon disputes relating to the validity of decisions of the company's organs - Scope - Action brought by a legal person governed by public law for a declaration that a contract is void on account of alleged invalidity of the decisions of its organs relating to the conclusion of the contract - Lis pendens - Obligation on any court other than the court first seised to stay proceedings - Scope)
Language of the case: German
Referring court
Kammergericht Berlin
Parties to the main proceedings
Applicant: Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (BVG), Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts
Defendant: JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, Frankfurt Branch
Re:
Reference for a preliminary ruling - Kammergericht Berlin - Interpretation of Articles 22(2) and 27 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (OJ 2001 L 12, p. 1) - Exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the State in which a company has its seat over disputes concerning the validity of the decisions of its organs - Applicability of that exclusive jurisdiction rule to an action brought by a legal person governed by public law for a declaration that an agreement is void on account of the alleged invalidity of the decisions of its organs relating to the conclusion of the agreement
Operative part of the judgment
Article 22(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as not applying to proceedings in which a company pleads that a contract cannot be relied upon against it because a decision of its organs which led to the conclusion of the contract is supposedly invalid on account of infringement of its statutes.
____________1 - OJ C 148, 5.6.2010.